An American Refugee Crisis: A Hypothetical Scenario

[Dahon]

Credit Herp's post on the undesirability of a balkanized States of America for giving me the idea to work on this thread.

Anyway: Civil War talk is once again in the air, with liberals and conservatives on each others' throats over a host of topics, from immigration to same-sex marriage to guns to education to the economy to foreign relations to the very fundamentals of democracy as practiced in the United States. While I very much doubt that things will come to that bloody head (as another poster pointed out in the Civil War thread, the latter half of the '60s saw not only actual terrorist groups operating on US soil, but assassinations of such figures as MLK, Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy), I must admit the question of what would happen if it does interests me, if for less than beneficent reasons.

So, yes, you can probably figure out what I'm after here, but I'll spell it out anyway: in the event of war between militant factions of American liberals and conservatives, hundreds of thousands if not millions will flock towards the Canadian and Mexican borders, seeking asylum and whatnot. Probably hundreds, even thousands, will set sail for Cuba, the Bahamas, Hawaii and various US territories, everywhere as far as their money and navigational skills could take them.

So here are my questions:

1) If you are an American refugee (and by American I mean American citizen -- no extra citizenship, no expat or exchange-student or tourist-trapped bullshit) in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application after application for asylum denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

And because these questions must have my answers:

1. I'm not a criminal.
2. "Some of them might be criminals, but let them die? Are you fucking nuts?"
3. Suicide by cop.

[Petrolheadia]

1. Because I'm a Pole, meaning that I'd only be settled in America, and the Polish government takes responsibility for Poles in warzones.

2. Would they? It's like saying that taking in Syrian refugees aligns a country with Al-Assad.

3. Start going to a different country.

[Dahon]

So I wasn't specific enough. Very well, will modify.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

1) If you are an American refugee in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

They should let us in to reciprocate the millions of refugees the US let in in the past few years. The US leads the world in such things with only recent changes to that.

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

The people fleeing the US are probably the ones who are suffering there, not the beneficiaries. So yes, so long as they are not violent criminals.

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

Try another country. Just because the Swiss don't let me enter illegally doesnt mean I can't try legally entering a nearby English speaking country with a slightly lower per capita income.

[Petrolheadia]

tourist-trapped bullshit

The Global Omninational Association of Trapped Tourists (GOATT) just sent you a hearty "Fuck you!".

[Dahon]

tourist-trapped bullshit

The Global Omninational Association of Trapped Tourists (GOATT) just sent you a hearty "Fuck you!".

Hey, I only wanted give my hypothetical Americans the sense of desperation they would need to absorb from all the refugees they have sent back -- to their homes, to their dooms, to heaven, to hell, who knows? I mean, this thought exercise wouldn't work if you have more options than the average refugee, would it?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Thank you Dahon.

For the record, If I saw a refugee on the shore of Toronto after having swum there from the US, I'd get them a towel, dry them up, rap them in a blanket and hit the Timmies Drive thru.

Hell, i'd give them a place to stay too. I'd invite them inside my house. I wouldn't care what there race, creed or anything is. I just want them safe.

If it was a kid then I'd also hit the Jay's shop and give them an Ace plush.

To your questions:

1) If you are an American refugee (and by American I mean American citizen -- no extra citizenship, no expat or exchange-student or tourist-trapped bullshit) in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application after application for asylum denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

---

1) Because you are human.

2) Because they are human, and that overrides everything else.

3) Grab a life jacket or make a raft, head over to Toronto shores.

Or just walk across the unguarded part of Saskatchewan - Washington border. Or swim across from Detroit to Windsor.

[Petrolheadia]

The Global Omninational Association of Trapped Tourists (GOATT) just sent you a hearty "Fuck you!".

Hey, I only wanted give my hypothetical Americans the sense of desperation they would need to absorb from all the refugees they have sent back -- to their homes, to their dooms, to heaven, to hell, who knows? I mean, this thought exercise wouldn't work if you have more options than the average refugee, would it?

For you, it's fun and games.

For GOATT beneficiaries, it's their real life.
A life where the airport Wi-Fi is the only connection with the world.
A life where every outlet is the place of a charge of people trying to charge their phones.
A life where the free airport food may not be fair trade or organic.
A life where the only people you contact are lowly tourists or airport personnel.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’d laugh in filthy globalist

[The New California Republic]

1) If you are an American refugee (and by American I mean American citizen -- no extra citizenship, no expat or exchange-student or tourist-trapped bullshit) in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

1. Go to UK. Say "Special Relationship".

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

2. Special Relationship.

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application after application for asylum denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

3. Stay. Challenge the decision all the way up to The Supreme Court. Then if the decision still doesn't go my way, then change my appearance, burn off my fingerprints, take elocution lessons to get rid of the awful accent so I don't stand out like a sore thumb, then be assimilated into society using fake documents to stay under the radar. The UK lets caught illegal immigrants out on conditional release, they rarely detain them for long periods, meaning that even if I am caught I'd be released and free to hide again...

[Conserative Morality]

>> implying I'd run

There's nothing for me out there. I live here or I die here. My identity is tied to my Americanism.

[The East Marches II]

They'd be very stupid to take anybody but our skilled sorts. Best bet is sail a cargo to ship to Europe, they don't have the stomach to stop you. However, I'm with CM at the end of the day regarding what to do.

[Infected Mushroom]

Credit Herp's post on the undesirability of a balkanized States of America for giving me the idea to work on this thread.

Anyway: Civil War talk is once again in the air, with liberals and conservatives on each others' throats over a host of topics, from immigration to same-sex marriage to guns to education to the economy to foreign relations to the very fundamentals of democracy as practiced in the United States. While I very much doubt that things will come to that bloody head (as another poster pointed out in the Civil War thread, the latter half of the '60s saw not only actual terrorist groups operating on US soil, but assassinations of such figures as MLK, Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy), I must admit the question of what would happen if it does interests me, if for less than beneficent reasons.

So, yes, you can probably figure out what I'm after here, but I'll spell it out anyway: in the event of war between militant factions of American liberals and conservatives, hundreds of thousands if not millions will flock towards the Canadian and Mexican borders, seeking asylum and whatnot. Probably hundreds, even thousands, will set sail for Cuba, the Bahamas, Hawaii and various US territories, everywhere as far as their money and navigational skills could take them.

So here are my questions:

1) If you are an American refugee (and by American I mean American citizen -- no extra citizenship, no expat or exchange-student or tourist-trapped bullshit) in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application after application for asylum denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

And because these questions must have my answers:

1. I'm not a criminal.
2. "Some of them might be criminals, but let them die? Are you fucking nuts?"
3. Suicide by cop.

Ok let’s play (I am not American irl though)

1.

I shouldn’t be given permission (not necessarily). I have no entitlement to enter; it depends entirely on the self interest, specific policies. Politics etc of the country I wish to enter (for my own self interest). I don’t really have any highly valuable skills that would make me particularly valuable and I personally don’t have much political value.

2.

To appeal to pro immigration/liberal voters for the next election? To look like a good guy nation(at the cost of increased political/social unrest, complaints of jobs stolen etc). I’d have to run a full test of pros and cons but overall... since in most countries the majority of people are either anti-immigration or subtly anti-immigrant... I’d probably gain more by denying entry. But if a group tries to force their way in or sneaks in very carefully I have to try and keep my cool (maybe I even let them get away with it) because I don’t want to get politically crucified on Twitter, liberal media etc.

3.

I would obey the law and stay in the USA.

I will join one of the main factions and establish myself as a skilled knight/fighter. Then I will offer a decisive 1 vs 1 trial by comba/duel to avert nuclear war, end the conflict, and save millions.

[Trumptonium1]

1. Go to UK. Say "Special Relationship".

2. Special Relationship.

3. Stay. Challenge the decision all the way up to The Supreme Court. Then if the decision still doesn't go my way, then change my appearance, burn off my fingerprints, take elocution lessons to get rid of the awful accent so I don't stand out like a sore thumb, then be assimilated into society using fake documents to stay under the radar. The UK lets caught illegal immigrants out on conditional release, they rarely detain them for long periods, meaning that even if I am caught I'd be released and free to hide again...

Non grata.

No country in Europe is the nearest safest country to the US.

[The Serbian Empire]

1. Go to UK. Say "Special Relationship".

2. Special Relationship.

3. Stay. Challenge the decision all the way up to The Supreme Court. Then if the decision still doesn't go my way, then change my appearance, burn off my fingerprints, take elocution lessons to get rid of the awful accent so I don't stand out like a sore thumb, then be assimilated into society using fake documents to stay under the radar. The UK lets caught illegal immigrants out on conditional release, they rarely detain them for long periods, meaning that even if I am caught I'd be released and free to hide again...

Non grata.

No country in Europe is the nearest safest country to the US.

You'd be looking for countries with no extradition agreements like Ecuador, Serbia, and the PRC. They'd be least likely to deport or be invaded as they're either not wealthy enough or have the ability to shutoff the whole US power grid.

[Olerand]

You should be granted asylum if you meet the criteria for asylum according to international law. It's that simple.
However, it should be made extremely clear that asylum is not a pathway to citizenship, nor residency. When the war concludes, Americans are to return to America. Exporting America's civil war and its toxic attitudes to everyone else is not desirable.

Because they meet international criteria. But again, the rules must be made clear, there is no pathway to residency.

Tough it out. What else is there to do?

[Fartsniffage]

It wouldn't be a huge issue. There are plenty of deserts we could use to built tent camps for them to live in.

[The Serbian Empire]

You should be granted asylum if you meet the criteria for asylum according to international law. It's that simple.
However, it should be made extremely clear that asylum is not a pathway to citizenship, nor residency. When the war concludes, Americans are to return to America. Exporting America's civil war and its toxic attitudes to everyone else is not desirable.

Because they meet international criteria. But again, the rules must be made clear, there is no pathway to residency.

Tough it out. What else is there to do?

The odds are that a war would not calm down or that the victors would be a group who would politically persecute or brutalize people. Particularly if a GOP-aligned group won and the refugees are LGBT, liberals, and visible minorities. You couldn't send them back to a political party who wants to imprison them.

Otherwise you'd not see Venezuelans being granted asylum. Venezuelans who are targeted by Maduro are likely to be imprisoned or killed.

[Washington Resistance Army]

>> implying I'd run

There's nothing for me out there. I live here or I die here. My identity is tied to my Americanism.

This^

[Thermodolia]

1. I wouldn’t be a refugee. I’d be fighting for the US government.

2. If I was France I’d deny any Americans unless they are willing to assimilate and become French citizens

3. I’d fight. I’d pick up my guns, put on my ACUs, and link up with other veterans

[Olerand]

You should be granted asylum if you meet the criteria for asylum according to international law. It's that simple.
However, it should be made extremely clear that asylum is not a pathway to citizenship, nor residency. When the war concludes, Americans are to return to America. Exporting America's civil war and its toxic attitudes to everyone else is not desirable.

Because they meet international criteria. But again, the rules must be made clear, there is no pathway to residency.

Tough it out. What else is there to do?

The odds are that a war would not calm down or that the victors would be a group who would politically persecute or brutalize people. Particularly if a GOP-aligned group won and the refugees are LGBT, liberals, and visible minorities. You couldn't send them back to a political party who wants to imprison them.

Otherwise you'd not see Venezuelans being granted asylum. Venezuelans who are targeted by Maduro are likely to be imprisoned or killed.

Case by case exceptions could of course be made for longer-term asylum, as is the case for notable public opponents and the like, who would be clearly separated from their benefactor country's political discourse.
But the taking in of millions denatures the political opposition category of asylum.

I am sure there are millions who oppose the Iranian regime right now, but they will not be accepted as political refugees.

[Sovaal]

I wouldn’t go to Mexico or Canada, that’s for sure. If there was another American Civil war I would expect it to either spillover or for the entire region to be extremely destabilized.

[The Serbian Empire]

The odds are that a war would not calm down or that the victors would be a group who would politically persecute or brutalize people. Particularly if a GOP-aligned group won and the refugees are LGBT, liberals, and visible minorities. You couldn't send them back to a political party who wants to imprison them.

Otherwise you'd not see Venezuelans being granted asylum. Venezuelans who are targeted by Maduro are likely to be imprisoned or killed.

Case by case exceptions could of course be made for longer-term asylum, as is the case for notable public opponents and the like, who would be clearly separated from their benefactor country's political discourse.
But the taking in of millions denatures the political opposition category of asylum.

I am sure there are millions who oppose the Iranian regime right now, but they will not be accepted as political refugees.

It'd probably be ideal to dispurse American refugees over many countries in that case if you had millions of them. Secondly, Iran censors the internet to the point the opposition is in hiding and probably smaller than we'd think.

[Sovaal]

>> implying I'd run

There's nothing for me out there. I live here or I die here. My identity is tied to my Americanism.

This^

This as well. America is my home. Might as well die here.

[Thermodolia]

Credit Herp's post on the undesirability of a balkanized States of America for giving me the idea to work on this thread.

Anyway: Civil War talk is once again in the air, with liberals and conservatives on each others' throats over a host of topics, from immigration to same-sex marriage to guns to education to the economy to foreign relations to the very fundamentals of democracy as practiced in the United States. While I very much doubt that things will come to that bloody head (as another poster pointed out in the Civil War thread, the latter half of the '60s saw not only actual terrorist groups operating on US soil, but assassinations of such figures as MLK, Malcolm X, and Bobby Kennedy), I must admit the question of what would happen if it does interests me, if for less than beneficent reasons.

So, yes, you can probably figure out what I'm after here, but I'll spell it out anyway: in the event of war between militant factions of American liberals and conservatives, hundreds of thousands if not millions will flock towards the Canadian and Mexican borders, seeking asylum and whatnot. Probably hundreds, even thousands, will set sail for Cuba, the Bahamas, Hawaii and various US territories, everywhere as far as their money and navigational skills could take them.

So here are my questions:

1) If you are an American refugee (and by American I mean American citizen -- no extra citizenship, no expat or exchange-student or tourist-trapped bullshit) in this hypothetical scenario, why should you be given permission by whichever government to reside in their part of the world? In other words, why should it take you in, fully knowing Trump's policies make you bad news by proxy?

2) If you're the government of whichever country takes your fancy, why would you take in refugees from the United States, fully knowing Trump's policies would've made the host country's inhabitants persona non grata?

3) Now imagine yourself a refugee again, application after application for asylum denied even if you're not a criminal nor would you likely be one. What would you do?

And because these questions must have my answers:

1. I'm not a criminal.
2. "Some of them might be criminals, but let them die? Are you fucking nuts?"
3. Suicide by cop.

Ok let’s play (I am not American irl though)

1.

I shouldn’t be given permission (not necessarily). I have no entitlement to enter; it depends entirely on the self interest, specific policies. Politics etc of the country I wish to enter (for my own self interest). I don’t really have any highly valuable skills that would make me particularly valuable and I personally don’t have much political value.

2.

To appeal to pro immigration/liberal voters for the next election? To look like a good guy nation(at the cost of increased political/social unrest, complaints of jobs stolen etc). I’d have to run a full test of pros and cons but overall... since in most countries the majority of people are either anti-immigration or subtly anti-immigrant... I’d probably gain more by denying entry. But if a group tries to force their way in or sneaks in very carefully I have to try and keep my cool (maybe I even let them get away with it) because I don’t want to get politically crucified on Twitter, liberal media etc.

3.

I would obey the law and stay in the USA.

I will join one of the main factions and establish myself as a skilled knight/fighter. Then I will offer a decisive 1 vs 1 trial by comba/duel to avert nuclear war, end the conflict, and save millions.

Hahah. Ya right. You would be a threat to the rest of us, you would only hold us back